Deans now understands the Wallabies issues
Roar Guru
By LeftArmSpinner, 11 Oct 2009 LeftArmSpinner is a Roar Guru
133 Have your say
Australian rugby union coach Robbie Deans (centre) talks to players during a training session for the team in Sydney on Monday, June 1, 2009. The Wallabies will play the Barbarians on Saturday night. AAP Image/Paul Miller
Robbie Deans’ 2009 Spring Tour Squad demonstrates that he now understands the unusual nature of the situation he inherited sixteen months ago and the solutions required to recover the situation.
Deans commenced coaching the Wallabies using his excellent and proven man management skills to win over the players to his methods.
He showed the incumbents sincerity, loyalty and gave them the first chance, and in many cases, many chances, to demonstrate their abilities and commitment.
However, Deans admirable strengths became his weakness.
The players abused his loyalty and genuine concern for them by refusing to play to his tactics and with the passion and commitment that Deans expected would be a given, and that every other successful national team takes for granted.
As a former All Black supporter, player and assistant coach, he knows that it is this passion and commitment that is the foundation of the All Blacks ethos and the reason behind their ability to win so many games.
Deans got a few good performances and one standout performance out of them.
This was enough to prove to himself and everyone else that the Wallabies have the ability and skill to win, but must also have the determination and pride to do so consistently.
The Brisbane game against the World Champion Springboks team, closely followed by the Wellington capitulation, was Deans’ epiphany. Now he fully understands the unusual situation he inherited.
Essentially, the players and RUPA were in charge and had been since at least 2003.
This was driven by the self-centred George Gregan at both the Brumbies and the Wallabies. Despite all the sound bites, Deans’ Wallabies were not serious enough about delivering their end of the bargain.
After sixteen months, Deans has now gotten tougher, eventually turning to extreme measures, as evidenced by his changing the habit of a lifetime and openly criticising the players on several occasions since the Wellington capitulation.
He has completely renovated the player stocks. Of the 35 man touring squad, only eleven are incumbents from June 2008 and of those, only six will be in his likely starting 15 in Tokyo.
He has replaced the previous leadership, and in particular captains Mortlock and Smith, while also overlooking Giteau and Moore.
This new culture puts the coach back in charge, puts the team first and ahead of the individual player and requires every player to give their best performance every time they wear a Wallabies jersey.
Understanding the scale of the job, Deans has appointed two players, rather than just one, to lead the team and implement the change in the culture.
The appointees, Elsom and Barnes, are highly compatible and complementary. Both are Queenslanders, former league players and are known more for their commitment than their natural abilities. Both will lead by example and with vigorous, on field instruction and direction.
They will fit comfortably into Deans new culture.
Deans decision to overlook Giteau and also move him to 12, against Giteau’s wishes, strengthens Elsom and Barnes’ influence while weakening Giteau’s.
It also sends a clear message to Giteau. Being the pin up boy and arguably the most gifted Wallaby player guarantees nothing if you are out of step with Deans’ new culture.
Deans unspoken message to the younger players who have gravitated to Giteau’s “Julio” camp like Cooper, O’Connor and Mitchell is that they need to realign to the Barnes camp if they value their Wallabies jersey.
This has been unexpectedly helped by Giteau and Mitchell leaving the Force in 2010 for the Brumbies and Waratahs respectively.
Giteau, now 27, could become the best Wallaby of all time if he can put aside the “me” culture he learned from the senior players at the Brumbies and Wallabies in his formative years and adopt Deans’ culture.
Deans’ next step must be to select a Wallabies team for the final Bledisloe Cup game that reflects and is consistent with all of the above.
I have no doubt that he will do this.
Nor do I doubt that the Wallabies have the ability to return to the winners circle, play some great rugby, re-establish themselves as Australia’s team and challenge strongly for future Bledisloe Cups, Tri Nations and RWC 2011.
Finally, a word of warning: rhe Wallabies re-emergence might be disguised, and possibly delayed, by the current shortage of healthy locks to provide the bulk and muscle in the engine room.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (173)
- The real story of how John O’Neill turned Manchester City down (70)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (65)
- Australian teams at Super disadvantage (58)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (29)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (19)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
Knives Out said | October 11th 2009 @ 2:15am | Report comment
‘The players abused his loyalty and genuine concern for them by refusing to play to his tactics’
Oh that really is too much.
Oh no wait, and then I read this..
‘Finally, a word of warning: rhe Wallabies re-emergence might be disguised, and possibly delayed, by the current shortage of healthy locks to provide the bulk and muscle in the engine room.’
I want some of what you’re having, Lefty. It’s starting to get a bit cold here and I need a winter warmer.
LeftArmSpinner said | October 11th 2009 @ 8:35am | Report comment
knives, Good to hear from you. I can feel the sap rising as the Wallabies tour draws closer.
You I have already been through this. You put the bulk of the responsibility for the Wallabies woes at Deans feet, not the players. I see it the other way. I accept that coaches in most sporting teams normally carry the responsibility.
A neither of us really know the truth, nor does anyone really know. We have to look at the evidence to draw our conclusions.
Here is my logic: we know and it is well documented that Deans coached teams and their style of play is to play an all round game, prioritising contesting everything, playing with ball in hand, counterattack and “playing whatg is in front of you”.
Are you really saying that, Deans, having this proven formula, arrives at the Wallabies and adopts a completely different style, AND a style that has been proven not to work and a style that is criticised by knowledgeable observers?
And if so, where did the Brisbane performance (reflecting Deans style) come from and why did the players continually say, post match, that they didnt execute the game plan as they intended?
Anyway, I’m on a high with the thought that we might be on the cusp of something special. Either way, I am happy that Deans has finally got his head around the problems and his solutions are well chosen. Will it work? Who knows, but it should, and if it doesnt, I expect that Deans will continue to revolutionise until it does work. I ask nothing more.
There is no down side. They are already losing everything anyway. It might end being a 2 RWC cycle rebuild instead of the usual one cycle.
Knives Out said | October 11th 2009 @ 8:43am | Report comment
I’m not going over old ground but I find it strange that you would make the allegation that the players ignored the tactics. If that were the case then Deans would either admit it or drop players. You can’t suggest that on one hand the man is a great coach and on the other that he would act like such a patsy.
Deans’ style was always based upon a conservative framework. That he ever suggested “Play what’s in front of you!” is a myth developed by Spiro and others. Find me that quote – it’s an urban myth. Are you really saying that two seasons worth of conservative, one-dimensional kick and defend rugby is all down to the players ignoring the coach? It’s also a very borderline presumption to think that Deans would frame the Crusaders style on the Australians. Australia didn’t contest the ruck against England last season, so what was different during the NZ game?
Why would you think you’re on the cusp of something special and where is the revolution? That’s a very bizarre leap of logic. If I suggested that following a 6N when England went 1 and 4 I’d be labelled an arrogant Pom.
I wouldn’t say the lack of locks are holding anyone back. First of all Australia needs to develop a tactic/s that suits the team and that works. Then the backline needs to be re-jigged and upskilled.
I’ve got no qualms with you being excited, but this is the sort of typical Australian extremism that crops up every so often. OJ has touched on the very subject on Spiro’s article.
ThelmaWrites said | October 12th 2009 @ 3:02am | Report comment
LAS, thank heaven for your steadfastness!
KO, here we go again: “play what’s in front of you” (pop pop).
The phrase seems to be an Austrailianism: Matt Burke used it in his autobiography; Bob Dwyer in his more recent book “Full Time”; and Gordon Bray to describe Carlos Spencer’s play-making at the 2003 RWC semi-final Aus v NZ. And of course Spiro and now, LAS. It appears to mean dropping any preconceived tactics and reacting to the situation as it unfolds.
I watched, for the first time, the 2003 RWC QF NZ v SA, and the SF Aus v NZ. (I was out of the country in 2003 and our DVDs are kept here in Kuala Lumpur.) As we all know, Mitchell and Deans were the NZ coaches. LAS captures very well that style of the All Blacks in his reply to you above: “to play an all-round game, prioritising contesting everything, playing with the ball in hand, counter-attack and playing what’s in front of you.” Spiro had alleged in an earlier thread that it was the Randwick style in the glory days when Jeff Sayle was coach.
So I am as mystified as you are why there has been so much kicking in the Aussie game prior to the Brisbane test. It defies logic that Deans will countermand the style at which he has been so successful at the Crusaders. Unless…
I will confess to a hidden agenda in constantly advocating that the ARU obtain help from AIS sports psychologists for the Wallabies. Hopefully we could get to the bottom of things without the nasty, adversarial connotation such as evoked by an inquiry a la Western Force.
Knives Out said | October 12th 2009 @ 3:50am | Report comment
I wouldn’t debate the NZ style of 03 was as Lefty describes, Thelma, but the Crusaders weren’t the Harlem Globetrotters of rugby. They worked to a plan and played from there if the opportunity arose. However, that hasn’t been an Australian style of play since… I don’t know when. Definitely prior to 1999. Australian teams have always had players skillfull enough to play off the cuff stuff but not this bunch, and I think that’s why they have been perhaps the most conservative team of the past few years. When in the professional era could you have said that so many other nations had superior backs?
Daniel J said | October 11th 2009 @ 10:18am | Report comment
I completely agree, the players are the ones on the field a coach can only give and prepare so much.
kingplaymaker said | October 11th 2009 @ 6:10am | Report comment
I think this whole idea that the Wallabies have a bad attitude is really a myth caused by a failure to face up to the reality of the currently low player stocks.
One of the supposedly troublesome old guard, Stirling Mortlock, hasn’t even been playing for almost all of this bad period. Nor another, Phil Waugh. SO that leaves..Matt Giteau: it can’t all be his fault!
What I will agree with though is that this latest move is designed to bring more power to Robbie Deans and take it away from the players. Presumably he thinks he can be more effective and get better performances out of them this way, and he may be right.
LeftArmSpinner said | October 11th 2009 @ 9:03am | Report comment
Kingplaymaker, Myth? Look at the history of the situation:
Off the field, the players:
1. sacked Nucifora,
2. ignored/challenged JON (pre RWC 2003),
3. refused to play a PvP game unless paid,
4. have won 1 out of 6 games this season
On the field, the players:
1. showed that they can do it by beating the world champs by playing a comprehensive game that characterised passion, determination (over the line 3 times before their first try) and skill, such as the AAC try, that ouzed skill and execution
2. in Wellington, didnt contest the AB lineout, despite it being clearly one of the AB’s weaknesses
3. in Wellington, didnt contest the breakdown and when they did, got smashed
4. in Wellington, committed the mortal sin of running across field
5. Kicked away copious possession
I am no expert on rugby, but I am very interested in it and try to look at it from all angles and clinically. Horan, Deans, NFJ, Poidevin, etc all believe that attitude is the problem.
Player stocks are fine. We live in a player market place that is reasonably efficient. If you accept that Deans is a good judge of a rugby player, and the ARU has allocated sufficient funds to play the required players, and that at the international level of any sport, success is more about what is happening above the shoulders between the ears.
Consider this back line and imagine you are the playmaker of this backline:
9. Genia (an emerging half, competitive, quick, an attacking option, good pass, brave in the tackle)
10. Barnes (Good kicker, good passer, cool headed in a crisis, rated by “Sage” Bennett, good tackler, real competitor)
12. Giteau (Great footwork, great hands, quick, good tackler)
13. AAC (Natural rugby player, quick, good footwork, strong runner, takes good lines, strong tackler, real competitor)
11. Turner (Real quick,)
14. Ioane (real quick, runs good lines)
11/14. Hynes (Real Quick, straight runner, Excellent under high ball, good tackler)
15. O’Connor (natural rugby player, real quick, great footwork, good kicker, good tackler)
Most of these players have uncoachable speed. If you get this group of players playing as a unit, and presenting defensive lines with decisions to make, one defensive mistake means try time!!!! Player stocks are fine.
Of course, in the short term, and due to a rash of injuries to Kimlin, Hocking, Wykes and Caldwell to name a few, we are short of locks. Vicks departure didnt help.
Knives Out said | October 11th 2009 @ 9:05am | Report comment
5 has been an ever present for a long time now and accelerated under Deans, and I honestly think those backs don’t compare with the NZ, Ireland, Wales or France backs.
Justin said | October 11th 2009 @ 9:09am | Report comment
LAS – thats the problem for me, I am not convinced that Deans is a good judge.
Also they did play a PvP just not on your terms…
kingplaymaker said | October 11th 2009 @ 1:18pm | Report comment
I’m sorry but I profoundly disagree that playing stocks are fine:
Lachie Turner, Drew Mitchell and James O’Connor are the worst back three to have represented Australia in the professional era. I hardly noticed any breaks or dangerous runs throughout the Tri-nations, and granted the team kicked a lot and had little possession, but that doesn’t such a dreadful, indeed non-existent display (so what if they’re fast, they’re not good just because of that).
Adam Ashley-Cooper is an ok player, but compare him to Mortlock two years ago or Umaga to see what should be expected.
The second row are at best average, and maim the team, especially in the lineout.
And what about number 8? Wycliff Palu is the only contender with any talent, and he has not made it yet.
So that’s seven players out of 15, almost half the team, under-standard. Is it any surprise they under-perform?
Indeed, that’s in my opinion the real reason they appear unmotivated, because they
INWARDLY SENSE THEIR LACK OF ABILITY AS A TEAM
When a team struggles hard and is just not good enough, eventually motivation saps away, pressure and expectation build and build and cannot be met, and finally, the team gives up!!!
Sure, in total desperation they can once rise above themselves, as in Brisbane, but think how depressing it must be to try and try and try while KNOWING you’re not good enough!
Poor Matt Giteau for example, flinging all those passes out to Turner, Mitchell and O’Connor and watching them immediately brought down. It’s no suprise he seems unmotivated.
A side which keeps losing gets gloomier and gloomier and more and more unmotivated and in the end, although it may flare up for a second, dies an inevitable death.
That’s the fate of this group of players. Whoever’s captain, and however much Deans gets them to try hard, unless some decent wings, full-back and second-rows materialise from somewhere the team is DOOMED to repeated losses and to being blamed for being unmotivated to boot.
sittingbison said | October 18th 2009 @ 9:08pm | Report comment
sorry to disagree but Giteau was hugely disappointing this Trinations season, his timing was off his passing ineffectual his kicking abysmal and his defence went missing in action.
amused said | October 11th 2009 @ 7:46am | Report comment
great article. some players like waugh etc gave their all but didn’t get a look in recently but have that “mongrel” that the elsoms have….lets bring some of them back….
LeftArmSpinner said | October 11th 2009 @ 9:05am | Report comment
spot on. its not a criticism of the Waughs of the world, just the law of the jungle
Col said | October 11th 2009 @ 3:16pm | Report comment
I agree. Phil Waugh has been on the outer of late, but he has mongrel and after being on the outer, should be motivated to get stuck in. Add his “follow me” leadership qualities and he would make a great ally to Elsom in the pack. Give him another go.
And on the subject of locks, can someone tell where the value of Nathan Sharpe lies? I too am no rugby expert, but it seems to me that, apart from height in the lineout, he brings little to the team, and seems to spend the rest of the game lumbering around the field contributing very litlle. We *need* mongrel at the contest and the ability to strike fear into the opposition.
Rugby 1 said | October 11th 2009 @ 7:49am | Report comment
Lefty you have it one!!! Fully support your story. Thankyou very much!!!! I read some bloody stupid comments in here sometimes, finally some one see what’s going on.
Chris said | October 11th 2009 @ 8:05am | Report comment
Yet another piece of anti-Brumby drivel. Yes we know you don’t like them. Giteau hasn’t played for the Brumbies for many years, yet apparently any of his negative personality traits are inherited from them (conveniently forgetting his three year stint at the Force where he was built up at Christ’s second coming).
There IS something different about the culture of the Brumbies (something very foreign to Queenslanders and New South Welshmen). It’s a culture of success.
LeftArmSpinner said | October 11th 2009 @ 9:10am | Report comment
Chris, not anti Brumbies. In fact, I rate them highly and in particular their culture. And yes, they had success and McQueen is a very clever man manager and business builder. BUT, Do you condone the players sacking Nucifora?
Giteau, then very young and inexperienced, was “infected” by the Gregan mentality during his time at Brumbies and Wallabies. I agree it was exacerbated by being God in WA.
I am a frustrated Tahs supporter.
Chris said | October 11th 2009 @ 2:19pm | Report comment
Who said anything about McQueen – last time I checked he left the Brumbies in 98 – three years before they won the Premiership.
As far as Nucifora was concerned I was always a fan of him. That said – the players did coach themselves to the Premiership in 04′.
Paradox said | October 11th 2009 @ 8:41am | Report comment
I’m glad you came out and stated your anti-Brumby bias. It puts into context your previous bizarre comments against George Smith – who displayed the highest work rate in the trinations. If it were a Brumby problem, why did Deans appoint a Brumby captain in Rocky Elsom? You have claimed that Deans has finally seen the light and yet there are now more Brumby players in the squad with the latest selection than there have been for several years. Can you please explain this phenomenon? Can you also tell us why Deans selected Smith as a caretaker captain? This was always a temporary role – Smith never wanted it and nor did he want the Brumbies captaincy and yet Deans selected him when Mortlock was crocked. Deans didn’t have to do this did he?
Your comments against Gregan are a disgrace – show some respect for a guy who has given so much time to charity and rugby in Australia. He hasn’t played for Australia for 2 years for godsake…
You praise the fact that Barnes and Elsom are Queenslanders…yet they don’t that want anything to do with Queensland in a rugby-sense. Lot of Queenslanders are at the Brumbies last time I looked.
Rocky Elsom is the only senior player who has gone to the media and stated that he didn’t like the accusations levelled by Deans after the All Black test. Deans has made him captain. Why would Deans do this?
Finally, I suspect the problem is not with the players in the squad but with those that are not in the squad. The amount of media coverage that Waugh gets is unbelievable. Why did NSW let go of Ewen McKensie despite his success? Who were the senior players who organised his downfall and are they the ones who have not been selected by Deans?
LeftArmSpinner, you have once again written a poor article that is completely illogical and contradictory. Making up this stuff is damaging Australian rugby. Pull you head in or stop writing articles for ROAR.
LeftArmSpinner said | October 11th 2009 @ 9:37am | Report comment
Paradox, thanks for your contribution. Let me clarify something. The Brumbies organisation was not at fault. they too were infected by excess player power. No player group should be able to remove a coach, unless there is something illegal and nasty happening.
I am in fact, a big fan of the Brumbies and admire them, their achievements and cleverness. Elsom’s arrival supports this. Frankly, I am continually frustrated when I see a good young player going around in Syd Grade, then see them pop up in the Brumbies Runners. Smith, 2009 Catchpole medal winner is the latest example. Fainifo, Smith, Toomua and Yanayantawa are others. NB: That is a compliment.
I restate and add that Smith, Mortlock and Waugh have been great servants of Aust rugby on and off the field. all three have displayed the determination and commitment that is essential to the Wallabies ethos. They have been battered and bruised for years and it takes its toll. Thats all. “Law of the jungle.”
Gregan polarises the audience. I am in the anti gregan camp. All credit to him as a player in his earlier days and his former power and influence, but he didnt use it very well. The team comes first, always.
I think this stuff is helping Aust rugby. Face the issues, discuss them, deal with them and move on.
As much as I dont want to disappoint you, I won’t “pull my head in” or “stop writing articles for the Roar”.
I will happily put my comments up for the Roar editors to publish or not and then be at the mercy of the Roar crowd and their comments. I will also defend them and change them when convinced to do so.
Paradox said | October 12th 2009 @ 1:30am | Report comment
Hi LAS
You didn’t address my points but oh well. Did you see the latest piece from Wayne Smith? In his article he devoted 3 paragraphs to Phil Waughs’ non-selection – where there’s some there’s fire did you not say? He also mentions rumours of a leak to the press from the ARU. Your thoughts please.
Link to the aforementioned article
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26195719-2722,00.html
You mention that the Brumby fans are sensitive..may be…but you hardly present a balanced argument. It appears you are trolling in the Stephen Jones fashion.
stillmissit said | October 11th 2009 @ 9:44am | Report comment
Paradox – good name BTW. Give me a break – Gregan! are we talking about the same self centred bastard who would throw his weight around in the ARU with the tacit backing of that other drop kick E.Jones.
Where did you get:
“Your comments against Gregan are a disgrace – show some respect for a guy who has given so much time to charity and rugby in Australia. He hasn’t played for Australia for 2 years for godsake…”
The main charity that Gregan supported was the George G retirement fund.
Paradox said | October 12th 2009 @ 1:47am | Report comment
Sorry Stllmissit but Connolly continued to select Gregan for Australia. If he were the type of player you make him out to be, he wouldn’t have been selected now would he.. ..
“Throwing his weight around the ARU” – oh please, this is just nonsense and heresay. Gregan bullying the likes of John O’Neill? Gregan was not liked by the Sydney press as he didn’t give them the time of day. As a result, they launched a vendetta against him which obviously suckered in the likes of you. Gregan was superb statesman for Australian rugby. That cannot be denied.
Gregan has also just been inducted into the Sport Australia Hall of Fame. No mention of this from LeftArmSpinner of course. Well done George. http://www.rugby.com.au/news/aru_general/aru_congratulates_george_gregan_on_hall_of_fame,134396.html/news/latest/section/21893
As for charity work and GG. Don’t embarass yourself. Please check out http://www.georgegreganfoundation.com.au and make a donation.
stillmissit said | October 12th 2009 @ 8:14am | Report comment
Paradox – Exactly, and look where it took Connolly! He went from a reputation of a hard nosed Qld coach to a mostly ignored, failed head coach where the assistants and the players did most of the planning and coaching. The results speak for themselves.
Jones was pathetic in keeping Gregan in a warm and cosy spot and Whittaker holding a spot on the bench instead of putting pressure on Gregan – I think it was some kind of record, but it was Connolly who kept him fed when his day was totally done to everyone except Connolly and the other selectors.
A vendetta by the press against Gregan, what are you on Paradox? The press and “THAT TACKLE” kept him in a job for years even when he didn’t deserve it. As soon as Gregan was questioned re his slow pass, lack of making breaks, running backwards before passing, only tackling when he felt he had to, the press would re-run “THAT TACKLE” and his tenure was set for another 3 years. It was the worst run of an over rated player I have ever seen in Australian rugby. I was a little relieved after Whittaker broke George’s leg in a tackle.
If you think charity work would be done without a large tax break then you really do believe in the tooth fairy.
sittingbison said | October 18th 2009 @ 9:14pm | Report comment
George Gregan played at LEAST two years too many, and the results are still being felt in that a generation has been deprived and the next is not yet hardened and ready. Same problem in the cricket team.
amused said | October 11th 2009 @ 10:04am | Report comment
“The amount of media coverage that Waugh gets is unbelievable. Why did NSW let go of Ewen McKensie despite his success? ”
excuse me? still tyring to fathom this statement i.e. you’re negativity against waugh, mackenzie? is that what you are trying to say?
waugh gave his all but was not favoured ( wrong decision ) against smith. he gave 110% like elsom and others.
as for his non selection, and mackenzie, let’s look at all the bonehead decisions NSW rugby and the ARU have made to let brilliant players, coaches go overseas or not renew contracts ( burke, vickerman etc etc ). these guys do give their all but are not rewarded.
Paradox said | October 12th 2009 @ 2:01am | Report comment
See comments below. Waugh was hardly supportive of McKensie at the end of his reign with NSW.
johnno42 said | October 11th 2009 @ 8:48am | Report comment
soooo its those petulant naughty wallabies fault is it spinner? the professional athletes who’s ego’s are bigger than the game, who have been beavering away from the inside sabotaging robbies ghame plans?? lefty ya gotta be havin me on.
johnno42 said | October 11th 2009 @ 8:54am | Report comment
“why did Deans appoint a Brumby captain in Rocky Elsom?”
paradox last time i looked ol rocky smellsom was not a brumbie.
Chris said | October 11th 2009 @ 2:14pm | Report comment
Um, yes he is…
fox said | October 12th 2009 @ 9:46am | Report comment
Technicality. Still yet to play a game.
ohtani's jacket said | October 11th 2009 @ 9:23am | Report comment
I kind of expected there’d be a new wave of optimism ahead of the end of year tour. Talk about setting yourself up for a disappointment. How about taking it one Test at a time? It’s still the same squad of players who can’t get the job done, coupled with a coach who can’t get them to win. Do you really expect them to turn around two years of mixed results in a month’s worth of rugby?
stillmissit said | October 11th 2009 @ 9:45am | Report comment
OJ totally agree with you. LAS is getting us all warm and fuzzy and I am enjoying it. Could be a cold summer in Aussie.
LeftArmSpinner said | October 11th 2009 @ 9:58am | Report comment
OJ, I am very much aware of the Aussie habit of excessive optimism. I warned against it prior to Wellington and got it right.
If I am optimistic, it is about the clear evidence of the renovation of the Wallabies culture in the longer term. six years of underperformance has driven me mad.
Theoretically, sporting teams can turn around quickly, assuming you have the necessary players and coaching staff in place. Look at Parramatta Eels this year or Wests Tigers in 2005?? A few wins, some self belief, some luck and determination and off you go.
But, am I deeply optimistic about the Wallabies? Nope, but after Deans latest selections, foundations appear to be in place so we are at last heading in the right direction.
ohtani's jacket said | October 11th 2009 @ 10:08am | Report comment
There’s nothing wrong with a bit of optimism. It’s all this talk about renovation that I can’t understand. You’re going back full circle to when Deans took over. The Wallabies really need to graft out some wins on this tour and not hype themselves up. With no due respect, Test match rugby is of a far higher level than NRL rugby. Turning around a 20 week+ campaign is easier than producing a winning Test side.
stillmissit said | October 11th 2009 @ 10:24am | Report comment
OJ the only thing is that the Wallabies need a bit of a hand up from the roarers. We ripped the shit out of them after the disgusting display in Wellington. You will most probably argue that the disappointment was only due to the build up we had given ourselves prior to the game, but I disagree. We have natural expectations about our national team and most roarers have been involved in rugby at some level and therefore expect a level of commitment and determination that Wellington killed.
The other part of the story is that the RWC is rolling around and we dont have a lot of time to start to put some winning combinations together. The tri-nations in 2010 is our last chance to have a side ‘on the climb’ rather than looking for its bottom!
I personally dont think we can do a Grand Slam but I am looking for some of the mental toughness that has been missing lately.
ohtani's jacket said | October 12th 2009 @ 12:01am | Report comment
You ought to be looking beyond 2011. I wouldn’t like to see a Wallabies team that’s continually rubbish between World Cups.
Knives Out said | October 11th 2009 @ 9:00pm | Report comment
The Wallabies ground out some wins during their last European tour, OJ, and didn’t kick on. Deans needs to put some long-term plans in place and not just look for the short-term win.
stillmissit said | October 12th 2009 @ 7:58am | Report comment
Knives – this is the great Aussie problem, come to think of it, it is also the Kiwi’s problem but they deal with it a lot quicker than we can.
After McQueen our coaches have had to look for short term wins v long term building, Jones and Connolly were classic examples of this. The tough part of management/coaching is that you have to do both.
Knives Out said | October 13th 2009 @ 12:30am | Report comment
To be fair it’s a problem that all coaches face, stillmissit. In most cases there is balance but it is up to the coach to find it.
Incidentally, I thought Connolly was quite strong in pursuing the younger option.
stillmissit said | October 13th 2009 @ 9:17am | Report comment
Yes but he trotted out the same old tired Wallaby brigade that Jones trotted out.
Brett McKay said | October 11th 2009 @ 9:26am | Report comment
Leftie, whatver you do, please don’t stop writing quality articles for The Roar…
I’m going to overlook the Gregan and Brumbies comments, becuase they’re aren’t your main point here (despite being the focus of several comments here above me).
There is no doubt in the world that the appointment of Elsom and Barnes is about a realligning of principles. These guys as you say can be counted on to lead from the front. It also gives the Wallabies the chance to establish some leadership stability. Elsom is 26, Barnes 23. These two could lead the Wallabies for the next two RWCs in theory, which would be a massive bonus.
There’s also no doubt Deans wants to try and nurse Mortlock to the RWC, but he also knows that this has to be done carefully. I wouldn’t at all be surprised to see Mortlock used off the bench as an impact player in Japan and Great Britain, and beyond. Beyond that even, Deans himself has admitted he prefers his captains to be forwards. He’s had success with that (Blackadder, McCaw) so wouldn’t he stick with it. The move could see a revitalisation of Stirling Mortlock.
How Matt Giteau deals with the possible shift back to 12 will be interesting, and perhaps even indicative of his character. With Matt Toomua’s form at the end of the 2009 S14, it’ll be interesting too to see where Brumbies coach Andy Friend plays him in 2010. I’d be very surprised if Friend doesn’t speak to Deans at some point, if it hasn’t happened already. I note the Brumbies have already stated they want to get back to their traditional running game in 2010, and a lot of that past success was built around a super-talented young kid from Queanbeyan in the No.12. Back to the Future??
This Spring tour potentially shapes the way rugby is played in Australia from this point on. Combinations and form established on this tour may well carry through to next years S14, particularly for Waratahs and Brumbies. Even for the Force and Reds too.
To those above, just because you don’t agree with LeftArmSpinner’s article, or didn’t see his main point, doesn’t make him wrong. Opinions are what makes The Roar after all..